User talk:Chadlupkes/Archive3
This archive is from September, 2006 Strange category - is it the infobox's fault? Can you check something out? It appears that the Candidate Infobox is creating an odd category (or something is, at any rate). The John H. Cox article, which I was working on, got an infobox put on it soon afterwards, and I think that's a great improvement. I like that part. But for some reason, the nonexistent category "Category:2008 President candidate" popped up, and there is no such wording in the text. I'm thinking it's a function of the infobox. If so, can it be "turned off" since it is ungrammatical and duplicates the existing categories? Thanks. - Nhprman 04:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) help with subcat name I changed the category of Abortion from Category:Civil rights to Category:Women's rights, and I'm looking for a name for an additional category to represent the other side. I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Life and death rights" that would be another subcategory of civil rights and would include abortion as well as capital punishment, right to die, and possibly even others like crime and gun laws. You helped out with a similar issue on Affirmative action, so I was wondering if you had an idea one this one. Discussion here. --whosawhatsis? 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC) africa template I see you're going around to all of the africa pages and adding "cat=yes". Wouldn't it be more efficient to add cat=no to the pages that use the template but shouldn't have that category?. --whosawhatsis? 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) :You're probably right. How would we change the #if statement to make that work? Chadlupkes 23:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC) ::Looks like you figured it out. --whosawhatsis? 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC) forgot to mention There was another issue with 3rr that I meant to mention last night on IRC. I strongly think that the the line about opening a new vote should have a requirement that "new evidence" must accompany the petition, otherwise someone could repeatedly request new votes until people give in just to shut them up. If this is going to get in, there's not much time left. If you want to discuss it, I'm on IRC now. --whosawhatsis? 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Rat Hi Chad, I wanted to tell you that I'm very suspicious about three votes that were made by users who's only contribution is the vote itself. We don't have an official policy about using sockpuppets to vote, but I think it should be sanctioned anyway. I propose to declare those votes null and to implement any or all of the following restrictions: *To vote, you must have at least five previous edits. *To vote, your first edit must be at least two days old. *To vote, your first edit must have been made before the vote started. See you around! --ШΔLÐSΣИ 11:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :They're not puppets. They are people I know who saw the issue and decided to get involved. Notice of this vote is going around the mailing lists and blogs. Are we going to discourage people getting involved, or encourage them? :Election fraud is a very contentious issue in the US right now, and it's almost completely one sided. I really don't want to go there on this site, although I expected Lou would bring it up. :To apply voter fraud policies after a vote has started will drive people away from this site, because their first contribution will be considered null and void. Is that a direction we want to go? Any vote that we take is going to be a draw for people on either side of an issue. I consider that a good thing for the site, not withstanding what it does for any given vote. If they come here to express their opinion on an issue they consider important, they will be more likely to stay and help build the pages if we don't drive them away. Chadlupkes 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC) ::OK, I agree completely with you and McLurker: no policy should be applied retroactively. We'll discuss voting rights on a separate page, but for this vote, present policies will apply. The "suspicious votes" stay. ::Although declaring a vote null is not the way to fix it, I do think voting pages could have some semi-protection. Again, this should be discussed at some point. ::Election fraud is an important issue in politics world-wide and I don't think we should overlook it on this site because it has caused differences in the US. Anyway, I'd like to learn about this one-sided debate you say is happening in the US and I'd love it if you could tell me a bit about it! --ШΔLÐSΣИ 14:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :::There's a solution. Get choicepoint to oversee all of our votes. Or Diebold! McLurker 14:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :::I fully agree that only logged in users should be able to vote. Go ahead and put a protection on the page to that level. :::Send me an email, and I'll be happy to expound on the voter fraud issue here in the US. :::And, I think it's time I open the door a bit wider. Chadlupkes 15:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC) MI Gubernatorial Race My fault. I misspelled it first. (Funny how many hits I found on my misspelled search.) I'll fix the link on the main MI page too. The category seems a bit too specific to me. I'd think Michigan elections 2006 or Michigan 2006 campaigns might be more helpful. --CocoaZen 04:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC) :We're still working out how categories and subcategories work, but you'll be able to get there from both Category:2006 elections and the and Category:Michigan either way. What's most important is that its standardized, so that you can find them the same way for any state. --whosawhatsis? 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC) proposal votes Campaigns Wikia:Three-revert rule should have added (I couldn't because its protected) and Campaigns Wikia:Allow Points of View and Campaigns Wikia:Single Point of View should probably have the same protection applied. --whosawhatsis? 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :I don't want to make protection automatic. We just need to keep an eye out on these to make sure that what we are voting on doesn't change in the middle of the vote. Chadlupkes 03:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::During the vote I think it would be a good idea to protect it, just in case. After the vote, it does not need to be protected, but we need to keep an eye out for vandalism (see Campaigns Wikia:Policy amendment policy). Re: Notifications Well, maybe the Forum would be, but I think people won't visit Wiki help much. Maybe we could create a forum for community news and others... --ШΔLÐSΣИ 00:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Calendar I checked that one out, but I'm not exactly sure how it works. I did find this page, which has an example of a calendar with lots of subpages. Of course, we're going to need to add another level of organization for the year, but that shouldn't really be an issue (yet). Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 21:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC) :That looks manually done. I'm hoping we can get something going with a back-end script. Chadlupkes 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 18 September!! Hi Chad!! Today is a day of Joy!! You like wine! Have some Chilean Pisco or Chicha along with some delicious Empanadas!! Dance Cueca!! From Chile I send you laughter and Celebration!!!!!! --ШΔLÐSΣИ 02:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC) SSMcat Hi Chad, thanks for the greetings! On a more serious tone, I must say I think the SSMcat problem has gone too far. You have been accused of recruiting external voters and, as you say, voter fraud is a delicate topic. I intend to freeze the vote, as we have entered dangerous waters. I consulted with an impartial person, and he seems to believe I am right: this vote cannot be made official. Sadly, you are not neutral to the latest controversy, so I'll be asking Jfingers88 for his opinion. For more, see my declaration. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Unblocking Hi Chad, I just realized that I have no idea how to unblock someone. Any ideas? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Idea Hey, Chad, had an idea I wanted to run by you. Browsing around the issues I just see disorder. Obviously, there's hardly any uniformity, and the individual articles themselves don't have much organization either. Even ones that are spectacular (with tabs and such), I still don't see a lot of utility evidencing itself. I'm also concerned with having simplistic 'pro' and 'con' sections for large issues, like same-sex marriage, marijuana, and the like. This seems to push toward simplistic conversations and lack the nuance I think we're all after. Therefore, I think the tabbed pro/con format should be reserved for specific issues, like proposed legislation and the like. Issue articles should be more like hubs, where you can see all the information on that issue Campaigns and beyond has to offer. Each hub would be tailored uniquely to its issue, but also share qualities to other issue hubs to make navigation easy and intuitive. The issue hubs may link to Essays or Soapbox forums, or maybe political candidates who are outspoken on the issue, or other related issues. How does that sound? I'm curious what you think, and anyone else who happens to read this. -- Ferguson 00:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :I think issues have burned too many of us, and with most of the social energy being expended on SSM and MAA type articles, we are in need of new ideas. Whatever issue strikes you the most, see what you can do. The Tabs can be changed, moved, deleted, whatever, as long as we don't lose content. See what you can do, and we'll see what you come up with. I would suggest you pick something without Tabs, like Education, to start with. Chadlupkes 05:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC) sitenotice links I've noticed that the sitenotice links sometimes appear as self-links (bold and not colored or clickable) when they shouldn't be. I don't know why this happens (most likely a caching bug) but it should be preventable by using interwiki link syntax. So for the current sitenotice, it would be: Please weigh in on the policy proposals for Campaigns Wikia. We also invite you to participate in the votes in progress. --whosawhatsis? 20:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :Done. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) ::btw, the preferred abbreviation for my name is "whosa" or simply "who". --whosawhatsis? 20:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :::First base... Chadlupkes 22:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Heh, yeah, it's also where I got my blog title (it's not a grammatical error). --whosawhatsis? 22:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)